Tag Archives: Texas Law

Today in Texas History – July 22

Leave a reply

From the Annals of Discrimination – In 1944, Lawrence Aaron Nixon, black physician and voting-rights advocate, was given a ballot to vote in the Democratic Party primary.  In that day, the Democratic nominee was all but assured of election and thus, the Democratic primary was the “real” election.  Nixon had become involved in the civil rights movement after seeing the disgusting number of lynchings of black men in Texas, one of which occurred in Cameron where Nixon was practicing at the time.   He moved to El Paso, established a successful medical practice, helped organize a Methodist congregation, voted in Democratic primary and general elections, and in 1914 helped to organize the local chapter of the NAACP.  But in 1923 the Texas legislature passed a law prohibiting blacks from voting in Democratic primaries. In 1924, with the sponsorship of the NAACP, Nixon took his poll-tax receipt to a Democratic primary polling place and was refused a ballot. This began a twenty-year legal fight.  Nixon and his attorney, Fred C. Knollenberg, twice prevailed at the U.S. Supreme Court in their quest to secure voting rights for blacks. The Nixon decisions were major steps toward voting rights, but Texas and the dominant Democratic Party employed a number of legal maneuvers to continue to deny primary votes to blacks.  Only after the decision in Smith v. Allwright ended the white primary system, did blacks have a clear right to vote.

Photo from http://www.blackpast.org

Representative Democracy Under Fire

Leave a reply

The Texas Election Law Blog  examines the possible destructive effect on American democracy should the Supreme Court rule in favor of the petitioners in Evenwel v. Abbott.

The plaintiff argues that Texas should not base state redistricting on the distribution of its population, but rather on the distribution of its voters. The motivation for the case is to strip power from urban areas in favor of the rural conservatives.

Central to the conservative argument is that apportionment of representation by population size “dilutes” the power afforded to voters by distributing representation based on both the voting population and all the other people (kids, foreigners, prisoners, non-voters) who happen to live in a state House or Senate district.

In other words, the plaintiff believes that government representatives do not serve all the people in their district. The plaintiff believes that government representatives serve only the people who vote, and everyone else can suck eggs.

The potential impact of this case dwarfs the recent decisions upholding the Affordable Care Act and legalizing same-sex marriage.  While those cases have sex-appeal to the general public, a case about apportionment of legislative seats must seem dull in contrast.  But, if the Supreme Court bites on the argument that only voters should count for apportionment purposes, there will be a fundamental shift in political power that will make the Republicans current gerrymandering of their way into entrenched legislative power seem like weak tea indeed.  There would be a massive shift of representation away from urban populations to rural areas and older white voters would exert an even more outsized influence on the body politic.  This could cement extreme right-wing control of state and federal legislative bodies for another 40 or 50 years.

 

County Clerk Refuses to Follow Law – Offers No Explanation

Leave a reply

Off the Kuff report that Irion County Clerk Molly Criner is refusing to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.  Her only explanation appears to be “I can’t do that.”

Criner, clad in a hot magenta knee-length skirt, white long-sleeve shirt and brown hair flowing loosely around her shoulders, extended her hand as she walked in and asked for the women’s names.

“We just need a marriage license,” one of the women repeated.

“Ok,” Criner sighed, “well, I can’t do that. But the clerk’s office in San Angelo is only 25 miles [away] and they’d be happy to issue one. I just can’t.”

For minutes the dialogue continued, the women questioning Criner as to why she was refusing and whether she had the paperwork and authorization. She responded that she does have the paperwork and is authorized, but repeated that she “just can’t do it.”

Referencing her staff, all of whom she said have issued marriage licenses to heterosexual couples in the past, Criner explained that no same-sex certificates would be coming out of her office. “I have not delegated my authority to them to do it, so they don’t have a choice,” Criner said. “You know, we all believe very strongly in what we believe, and I admire you for that. I really highly recommend 25 miles down the road, where you can get a license in Tom Green County.”

What Ms. Kriner can’t do is perform one of the essential functions of her office which is following the law that she took an oath to uphold.  What Kriner can do is resign if she cannot perform the job she was elected to do.

The End Times are Near, Cont.

Leave a reply

Yahoo Sports relates that Gail Payne, an Oakland A’s season ticket holder, has filed a lawsuit seeking to have MLB clubs install foul pole to foul pole netting to protect fans from foul balls, broken bats and the occasional errantly expelled chaw spit.   A Houston law firm, Hilliard Munoz Gonzalez is representing Payne, but a website asks other season ticket-holders to contact another firm handling the case, Seattle-based Hagens Berman.

”Every type of fan is constantly at risk of serious injury or death,” claims attorney Robert Hilliard. ”If that foul ball is hit hard enough, reaction time is basically zero and life-threatening injury is certain. This is a needless risk. Extending the nets will, as a fact, save lives.”

If you want to sit in good seats, you must be willing to pay attention to the game.  If you can’t do that, sit in the outfield or the nosebleeds.

Is Texas Still Executing the Innocent?

Leave a reply

This month Texas executed 67 year-old Lester Bower after 31 years on Death Row.  Bower, a devout Baptist, husband and father of two  daughters had never been in the slightest bit of legal trouble when he was arrested, tried and convicted for allegedly killing 4 men in an aircraft hangar on a ranch near Sherman.  The prosecution’s theory was that he killed the men to cover up his theft of a $3000 ultralight aircraft.  Bower appears to have been in the wrong place shortly before the wrong time and compounded his problem by foolishly attempting to keep his wife from learning about buying the aircraft. Many now think that there is no way that Bower would have been convicted if the current evidence had been available at trial. Several witnesses have came forward to implicate four other men for the killings which probably occurred as a result of a drug deal gone bad.  But without clear and convincing evidence of actual innocence, Bower was out of luck and on the wrong side of the legal system.   Politico reports on the most recent execution of another possibly innocent man.

The Anti-Gay Crowd Aint Going Down Without a Fight

2 Replies

Texas AG Ken Paxton will not give up easy and Red suspects neither will his Tea Party cohorts.  Marriage is only for straights and the Gays can feel whatever they want, but don’t try to walk down the aisle in Texas.  RawStory recounts Paxton’s recent interview on CNN.

“My job as attorney general and the job of the Legislature is to really follow the will of the people and enforce the laws that we have,” he remarked. “This is both in statute and in our constitution. So, that’s my job, and that’s the job of the Legislature.”

But the attorney general was not willing to say that the state would follow the Supreme Court if it decided to rule in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage later this year.

“Aren’t you saying that the gays and lesbians in your state are not as valued at heterosexuals because they can’t form into a union?” Camerota asked.

“All the Legislature has done in the past is try to reflect the values that have been in this state and this country for over two centuries,” Paxton insisted.

“What about homosexuals who fall in love? What should they do?” the CNN host pressed.

“They have — they can do whatever they want,” Paxton shrugged. “But the reality itself right now in Texas was defined by the people of Texas overwhelmingly as between a man and a woman. And that’s the law of Texas, it’s in our constitution, it’s in our statutes.”

“I mean, they can’t really do whatever they want as you’ve just said,” Camerota shot back. “Do you understand why gays in Texas would feel that is discriminating against them?”

“They can feel how they want,” Paxton replied. “The reality is the voters of Texas have passed the law as it is.”

Ten bucks says that even Tea Party crazed Texas would not vote the gay marriage ban into the Constitution today.